Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Construction of wills

Legal area

Court

3 May 2024

NORMAN GUY DONALD AND ANOTHER v. LEE MICHAEL CHAK CHUEN in his capacity as executor of the estate of LI PAK IU AND OTHERS

Citation

[2024] HKCA 403
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV203/2022

Clause 5(2)(f) is, on its language and context, a single gift for Ching Sheung which is void for perpetuity; because the gift was void ab initio there was no subject matter out of which the Trustees could exercise the proviso to benefit any son, and therefore the appeal fails; alternatively, the proviso would amount to a trust power (not a mere power) and the appeal would still fail; leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal is refused as the questions are not of great general or public importance nor reasonably arguable.
27 Jun 2022

HU MING TAT AND ANOTHER v. ZHANG RUI AND OTHERS

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1947
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP566/2020

The court held that the liabilities of the Estate must be discharged in accordance with the statutory order in s63(3) PAO and Part II of Schedule 1 because the will contained no contrary intention to exonerate the HK properties; the clauses relied on did not deal with payment of the deceased's general debts nor vary the statutory order; the confirmation notes were inadmissible under s23B as the will's language was not ambiguous; dividends or shareholder loans could not be compelled to satisfy debts; therefore the residuary estate is to be applied first and remaining liabilities met rateably f…
21 Apr 2022

NORMAN GUY DONALD AND ANOTHER v. LEE MICHAEL CHAK CHUEN in his capacity as executor of the estate of LI PAK IU AND OTHERS

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1106
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP610/2021

The proviso in clause 5(2)(f) is inter-related with the primary (ancestor worship) gift and cannot be severed; in any event the proviso, if severable, conferred only a mere power which has lapsed by unreasonable delay; accordingly the whole clause 5(2)(f) is void for infringing the rule against perpetuities and the one-sixth share falls to be distributed among the residuary beneficiaries under clauses 5(2)(a)-(e).
28 Mar 2022

LAM MAN CHEUNG v. LAM MAN YIN AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 866
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP375/2021

Clause 3 of the Will, objectively construed, did not create a gift in specie of the Flat; it divided the testator's interest into 100 shares and devised percentages which can be satisfied by proceeds of sale. Absent maladministration, a beneficiary cannot compel an executor to assent. Executors acted within their s54 PAO powers in seeking possession and sale for administration. Therefore the claim for an assent was dismissed and the application for sale and related orders was granted.
28 Mar 2022

LAM MAN YIN AND ANOTHER v. LAM MAN CHEUNG AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 866
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP739/2021

Clause 3 of the Will, objectively construed, does not create a specific devise of the flat in specie; the devising of 100 shares and allocation of 60/40 is not a requirement that the flat be retained in specie. The executors' refusal to assent and decision to obtain possession and sell the flat for administration are within their powers under s54 PAO and do not amount to misadministration. Accordingly the claimant cannot compel an assent; the court grants the executors' application for possession and sale with directions and costs as specified.
7 Sept 2020

HO SIK CHEUNG v. CHENG YIN PING ELIZA

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 2295
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAP18/2016

On the balance of probabilities the court found the 1999 will was validly made: it was duly executed, the deceased had testamentary capacity when he instructed and executed it, and he knew and approved its terms. The 1998 will was procured by actual undue influence and domination by Kam Cheung and Cheng and is therefore invalid and revocable; the 2015 grant based on the 1998 will is revoked. The court relied on contemporaneous factual findings (including the 2002 judgment) and credible testimony and gave weight to proximate psychiatric evidence that did not undermine capacity for the 1999 wil…
4 Sept 2018

LI KA SING AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF KAN KIT WAN, DECEASED v. TONG MEI LIN AND OTHERS

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1949
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2150/2016

The court applied the established equitable principle that where purchase money is advanced by a person but title is taken in the name of another, a presumption of resulting trust arises, subject to the presumption of advancement in familial transfers; on the factual matrix (father paid monies, father frugal, absence of evidence of gifts, lack of contrary contemporaneous evidence and failure of some defendants to give evidence), the presumption of resulting trust was not rebutted and the three properties registered in the Deceased's name were held subject to the beneficial interests of the Fa…
31 May 2017

DR LAU YUE CHIU v. LAU KIN SHUN FREEMAN

Citation

DR LAU YUE CHIU v. LAU KIN SHUN FREEMAN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1176/2016

Defendant was entitled to the grant de bonis non as personal representative of the 4th son under rule 19 of the NCPR because the Will/Codicil bequeathed the residuary estate to the three named sons absolutely and the DFA was a post-death family arrangement that did not make the plaintiff an ultimate residuary beneficiary; accordingly plaintiff's claim had no reasonable prospect and was struck out.
29 Mar 2017

IO WAI (the trustee of YU HENG LONG also known as ALEX YU) v. LEUNG TAK FAT AND OTHERS

Citation

IO WAI (the trustee of YU HENG LONG also known as ALEX YU) v. LEUNG TAK FAT AND OTHERS
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP1864/2015

The court dismissed the Order 14A/Order 33 summons because material and substantial disputes of fact (authenticity and existence of tenancy agreements, date when adverse possession began, occupancy and payments, and other factual matrix) were interwoven with the legal questions; in those circumstances summary determination would require ruling on hypothetical facts and was inappropriate, so the issues must be resolved at trial; costs ordered accordingly.
21 Dec 2015

TONG WING KIN AND ANOTHER v. HURST, TONG TZE MING OPHELIA AND OTHERS

Citation

TONG WING KIN AND ANOTHER v. HURST, TONG TZE MING OPHELIA AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2379/2014

Clause 3 was ambiguous on its face or when read with surrounding circumstances so extrinsic evidence is admissible under s23B; documents relating to drafting and preparation of the Will are relevant and necessary for a fair disposal therefore discovery under Order 24 r 3 is ordered; counsel advices were obtained in the course of estate administration for the benefit of the estate (joint interest with beneficiaries) and not clearly for the executrix's personal benefit, so legal professional privilege does not bar disclosure to the plaintiffs; accordingly discovery of the drafting documents and…